Wife left for brother’s birthday in 1992, never returned: Court grants divorce to 67-year-old

“Upon careful examination of the oral evidence of the parties, it appears that the decision of the separation on the part of the wife was without any reasonable cause and therefore, there has been no resumption of matrimonial cohabitation for approximately 40 years and more,” the September 9 order read.

Left home in 1992, never returned

The couple married in 1989, lived together, and had two sons. However, the husband allegedly did not want the second child, and this led to a matrimonial dispute.

The man claimed that his wife used to pick fights over petty issues. Despite several attempts, he added that she did not change her conduct and attitude. In August 1992, she left the house to attend her brother’s birthday and did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. In 1999, the man filed for divorce, mainly on the ground that she treated him cruelly and deserted him for two continuous years before he filed the case.

Justices Ilesh J Vora and R T Vachhani noted that the husband had not seriously challenged the Rs 12,000 monthly alimony to be paid to the woman.

The family court, in 2015, held that the husband had failed to prove cruelty and also found that he had not established desertion, and dismissed his plea. Aggrieved, he moved the high court challenging the family court’s order.

‘Not keen to resume marital life’

The husband, through advocate C B Dastoor, argued that the couple had not lived together since 1992. He added that the wife was not interested in resuming the marital life and had made no attempt to return to the matrimonial home. It was also argued that the wife had no reasonable cause to leave the matrimonial home.

The wife, represented by advocate Rasesh Parikh, admitted that they had not lived together since 1992. Considering the age of both parties, counsel argued that the divorce could be granted along with an increase in permanent alimony. He added that the wife lived in a religious institution and requested that her name be retained as the nominee for the husband’s pension and other retirement benefits.

No reason to leave matrimonial home: HC

The court noted that the reasons offered by the wife for living separately were not satisfactory enough to show that the husband had created an atmosphere that gave her a reason to stay away.

“In such circumstances, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the family court, that the appellant (husband) failed to establish desertion, are not borne out by the evidence on record and has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the ground of desertion has not been established,” it noted.

The court further noted that the Rs 12,000 monthly permanent alimony fixed by the family court had not been seriously challenged by the husband and that he was receiving a Rs 45,000 monthly pension.

It also found that the wife had no “independent means” of livelihood and was dependent on the maintenance amount. “Thus, considering the positive attitude of the appellant (husband), giving consent to increase the amount of permanent alimony to the extent of Rs 20,000, we are of the view that the amount of permanent alimony is required to be modified to the extent of Rs 20,000 per month,” it observed.

Accordingly, the husband was directed to deposit Rs 20,000 every month directly into the wife’s bank account. The court also recorded that the husband had agreed that the wife would remain the sole nominee in his service records and would continue to receive pension and other retirement benefits even after the divorce.

The court finally set aside the family court’s order and dissolved the marriage on the ground of desertion.